The House was set to vote on the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements, or SCORE Act, earlier this week, but the bill was removed from the list just hours before its vote was scheduled to take place. The legislation was defeated due to growing opposition within the Republican rank and file who argued that there are still unanswered questions about how the regulations would be implemented.
Advertisement
“There were some members who had some questions and wanted to know more about the bill,” Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., told reporters Thursday. “So we’re going to take our time to make sure we can finalize the coalition.”
The bill would codify rules that were decided upon in a multimillion-dollar deal last year that expanded the scope of how student-athletes can be paid while also clarifying certain provisions that supporters say are crucial to avoiding loopholes.
The SCORE Act would guarantee the rights of students to sign name, image and likeness contracts, also known as NIL agreements, without restrictions by their schools or sports organizations. The bill would enact the law nationally, effectively replacing individual state NIL laws so that all conferences meet the same standards.
The bill is backed by the NCAA and has received support from the White House and the US Olympic organization.
Advertisement
Most congressional Democrats oppose the legislation, meaning Republicans would have to remain united almost unanimously for the bill to pass the House. However, a faction of House Republicans came out against the framework earlier this week, prompting leaders to remove it from the weekly calendar.
“I just don’t think it was ready for prime time and we’re trying to fix some of the lingering problems,” said Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who staged a rebellion on the House floor earlier in the week.
How do we get here?
The legal battle over how student-athletes should be compensated for their talent has been underway for years. But things really started to accelerate in 2021 after the Supreme Court decided in NCAA v. Alston that the NCAA was unfairly benefiting from college athletes’ NIL contracts.
Advertisement
At the time, the NCAA placed certain restrictions on what student-athletes could receive in the form of non-monetary compensation, such as internships, arguing that it was necessary to prevent the emergence of “pay-to-play” schemes or that student-athletes were being treated like professionals.
The Supreme Court upheld lower courts’ rulings that those restrictions violated antitrust laws, paving the way for major changes to how college athletes could receive compensation.
Individual states began passing laws to regulate NIL contracts that would allow students to profit from their own name, image, and likeness. That led the NCAA to reverse its stance and allow athletes to begin signing NIL contracts and sponsorship deals without violating conference rules.
As more college athletes benefited from name recognition and endorsement, advocates began challenging other NCAA restrictions on how students could be compensated for media rights and other benefits. This led to a major settlement in 2024 as part of the House v. NCAA., allowing each school to pay its athletes up to $20.5 million per year, which is roughly 22% of the average athletic department revenue at Power Four schools.
Advertisement
What would the bill do?
The SCORE Act would, in essence, codify those changes into law and apply them nationwide.
The bill would make clear that student-athletes are not considered employees of any school or athletic association, which would offer universities legal protections while ensuring students receive fair compensation.
If schools classified athletes as employees, they would be required to set rules on things like minimum salary for practices and games; health care benefits and insurance; and overtime policies — guidelines that would become too complicated and too costly for schools to maintain.
Advertisement
It would also allow schools to maintain the tradition of college sports being considered “amateur competitions” rather than professional employment.
The SCORE Act would require schools to provide access to academic and career counseling for student-athletes, as well as mental health services. Athletes would receive medical coverage for injury-related expenses up to three years after graduation, and students would be eligible for scholarships regardless of injury or NIL activity, according to the bill.
Why are lawmakers opposed to the changes?
Although the original bill has some bipartisan sponsors, top Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill urged rank-and-file members to oppose the bill this week over fears that it still gives too much authority to the NCAA.
Advertisement
Because the NCAA and universities are given certain protections that would allow the conference to control athletes’ compensation, rules and eligibility without legal challenges, some opponents argue this could create a monopolistic structure in which the largest sports programs can dictate decision-making.
Opponents also worry that national standards would give the NCAA enormous control rather than allowing individual states to handle NIL contract issues. They argue that doing so could strip athletes of stronger protections.
But some lawmakers oppose the framework simply because they argue it was hastily drafted and that Congress should focus on more urgent legislation before the end of the year.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., said she is undecided on the bill, telling The Associated Press that it is “not a top priority issue right now for us.”
Advertisement
What comes next?
Congress is only scheduled to remain in session for two more weeks before adjourning for the holidays, making it likely that the SCORE Act will drag into the new year before being considered.
This is increasingly likely as Congress will have to focus on passing some type of healthcare bill to prevent certain enhanced Obamacare subsidies from expiring later this year. If those measures expire, millions of Americans could see their health care premiums rise.
Appropriators are also scrambling to reach a spending deal before the end of the year to get a head start on finalizing the annual budget before next month’s Jan. 30 deadline.
Meanwhile, the House has a long to-do list full of bills that have been put on the back burner after staying out of session for seven weeks during the government shutdown.